Multi award-winning Russian classical ballerina Natalia Osipova is a major star in the dance world. She started formal ballet training at age 8, joining the Bolshoi Ballet at age 18 and dancing many of the art form’s biggest roles. After leaving the Bolshoi in 2011, she joined American Ballet Theatre as a guest dancer and later the Mikhailovsky Ballet. She joined The Royal Ballet as a principal in 2013 after her guest appearance in Swan Lake. Osipova will be joined by Sergei Polunin for these world premieres, marking the first time they have danced together in the UK.

For this brand new production, Natalia Osipova experiments with the contemporary genre as she strives for new ways of artistic expression. The programme, the first ever to be commissioned by her, features new work inspired by this unique dancer, by three contemporary choreographers: Sadler’s Wells Associate Artists Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui and Russell Maliphant, alongside Opera House regular Arthur Pita.

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

I guess all of you have been feeling enough to follow what are happening in the UK after the referendum, but I would like to make my voice heard because there is no voice from non-British or non-EU residents in the UK what we have been through after the referendum.

On 24th June, a person (I would call E) who I know for some years asked me how I was feeling about the result of the referendum. I told that I was upset by what the British decided. Immediately, E said, “Why? You are a Japanese and you do not need to be upset. Listen, now for the Japanese, it will be easier to come to the UK”.

I was gobsmacked and took it as a kind of humiliation, not only for me, but for my European friends. For E, who overwhelmingly told me that E voted to leave EU, immigrants from EU countries seem to be more problematic and the Japanese to be more obedient?

My friend from Sicily was absolutely upset by the result. Not only did he feel rejected by the UK, he also felt betrayed by the country where he worked very hard until 23rd of June. I feel too.

Yes, I am a Japanese coming from a non-EU country and I might not need to worry about the situation right now. However, the Leave camp frequently attack the immigrants and I, too, feel rejected as an immigrant living and working in the UK.

There are many analyses of how the referendum resulted in the decision to leave the EU. Some analyses point out that people, in particular in the north of England, used this referendum to make their voices listened to by politicians.

Ultimately, I think it should be Mr Cameron who is accused of causing this situation. He gave many people the power which he could not control. The people used the wrong power at the wrong timing.

I feel sorry for the people who have for years felt that none of their politicians listen to them. Nonetheless, I would like to ask them, “why did you not do more efforts to make your voice heard in Westminster?”

I may be wrong, but I believe there are some ways for them to do it. For instance, the right of doing industrial actions belongs not only to the Tube workers, but to farmers, fishers and all workers.

Mr Peter Barakan, who has lived in Japan for more than 30 years, expressed what he felt about the result of the referendum. He was surprised and he also felt that some British people might feel as if they still live in the time of the Great British Empire. I do not mind if the British want to feel that they are the member of the Great British Empire, but if so, I would like to tell them that the most important thing is your responsibility to take care of the people under your wing.

A few days before the referendum, I asked some of my friends about a connection between an English phrase and the attitude of the British.

What’s the damage?

http://loveandhatelondon.blog102.fc2.com/blog-entry-2691.html

http://loveandhatelondon.blog102.fc2.com/blog-entry-2693.html

I must admit that I do not think people in Japan would be happy to change, or develop their attitude to follow what are happening in the world. I have two more phrases in which I see the connections to the negative tendencies of the people in the UK.

First, when people are not certain whether they come into a right place to find a thing they need, many people compose negative questions; don’t you have xxxx?” When the answer is “no”, they look relieved. For, “I was not sure if they have a thing I am looking for and I asked them with my assumption that they do not have. So, their answer is “no” and I did the correct question", which I mean they cannot accept a fact that they did not find a right place.

Second, “no worries”. When someone asks me if I know where a shop/ a building is, my answer is “no”. Instead of saying “thank you”, then, many people tend to say, “no worries”. Of course, I am not worried about your being lost because you did not check properly by yourself. I feel because the people do not want to admit a fact that they are lost (their mistake), they pour their guilty onto me.

If I were somewhere in Syria and someone asks me how to get Aleppo, of course, I am worried about that person. But in London, why do I have to worry about the people who have not done something they needed have done.

Thank you for reading my Janglish and for allowing me to pour my anger onto you. I feel a bit better now. I do hope the UK would not go into isolation.

The picture that is emerging is of a heavily polarised country, with remain areas coming in more strongly for remain than expected, and leave areas more strongly for leave. Geographically, Scotland and London have voted overwhelmingly for remain, but England leans heavily to leave.

Interesting comments underneath your friends article about other European languages that use a similar phrase.

As the article said it's generally seen as a slightly humorous thing- in one sense it's an ironic play on exactly what you've mentioned- I've chosen to spend my own money, yet am acting as if some kind of calamity has befallen me.

But as I said to you I also think it springs from the reluctance of British people to talk in a direct way about money, or about debt to others. I remember, growing up, that my parents would never answer when I asked them how much money they earned, and it would've been the height of rudeness to ask that question in a social setting.

Jokes are a way of deflecting directness... being too direct is seen as rude. I noticed this a lot when I started working with African colleagues whose use of language and tone is a lot more direct. I thought I was being 'polite' but they saw my way of asking things as very long and indirect. Why would you say 'excuse me I was just wondering if you might possibly do this if you have time?' when you could say 'can you do this?'

Interesting connection you make to the referendum- are British people just miserable?! Or if not miserable do they like to just discuss things in a negative way?

It certainly seems to be a feature of the British character that to be too positive about something is seen as a bit 'off' somehow. In fact I would go further and say that British people generally struggle with sincerity about things...Fascinating anyway how one little phrase can have so many interpretations and ripple out into so many topics.

As always, I need your help in order for me to understand a part of the British mentality.

I cannot remember when I heard first time this particular phrase, "What's the damage on my wallet?". However, I still remember my initial reaction to this; I was not able to understand what is the person in front of me asking?

From a Japanese point of view, I was thinking that I did not force you to spend your money, but it is YOU who have chosen to spend/ waste your money. Why are you making me feel guilty? Why can you not ask me simply, "how much is it?"

I asked a British friend of mine if this phrase is only used in the UK. The answer is Yes. The Americans can understand what it means, but they do not use it frequently.

Then, EU referendum. Before the last week's tragedy, what both Remain and Leave did was that they scared the voters by saying if you would not vote for us, it must be you who cause us big problems.

I do not know British or English mentality, and not always, but people in the UK tend to make the others feel guilty although the others have not done anything wrong.

If my question irritates you, please ignore, but if you have your say, please teach me.

この"What's the damage?"という表現を知っている日本人がどれほどなのかは全く予想できない。が、これを日本語に直訳して日本の日常生活で使おう、使える人が多く居るとは思わない。

As you know, I'm here in xxxxxxxx. Well in spite of the long history of Brits over here, some of our expressions are also not understood by Asian colleagues and this has made me careful about the way I use my language because I do not want to give offence or puzzle people. I find I have to express myself more simply and directly, and sometimes in ways which would seem rude if I were talking to someone who comes from the same place, generation and background to me.

The fact is that the English language is constantly evolving and changing. The way my children speak is sometimes quite different from the way I speak and I don't understand all their expressions. There is a great tradition of playfulness in English, whether it is spoken by West Indians, Irishmen or East Londoners. So expressions such as 'What's the damage?' meaning 'How much does it cost?' are intended to be humorous. Much British humour is based on exactly the dynamic you have described. So the person in the shop who comes in with money and the power to buy something jokingly pretends he is the one without any power and pushes the power or guilt on to the sales person. It is not meant to be nasty. I hope you are not offended.

Last month I had to take my car in to the garage to get the annual MOT done. An MOT is basically a check you have to have done every year to ensure your car is still safe enough to be on the roads. I always get mine done in the same place – a little local garage near where I live. I know the mechanics there and I know the owner and I trust them to do a good job and not try and rip me off by charging me for things I don’t really need. When I went to pick up my car, I chatted a bit, had a look at what they’d done and then went into the office to pay. I asked, as I usually do in these kinds of circumstances “So can I settle up? What’s the damage?”

It’s the same question I might ask a tailor, a barman, a builder or a friend who’s bought something I asked them to get me. I’ve always thought of it as a friendly, jokey kind of question; a way of asking how much you owe while acknowledging the damage done to your bank balance. However, I was chatting to a Japanese friend yesterday and suddenly realised not everybody sees it in the same way. The first time he heard the question, his initial reaction was blank incomprehension, which was followed shortly afterwards by shock. He saw the question as manipulative and found it annoying. “From a Japanese point of view,” he told me, “I’m thinking that I didn’t force anyone to spend their money. They chose to do it themselves! Why are they trying to make me feel guilty? Why can’t they just ask me simply how much something is?”

It just goes to show how simple bits of everyday language can be interpreted so differently – and how deeply our own cultural roots affect the way we see things. A fixed phrase that I’ve always taken for granted – or seen as warm and friendly and funny – can sound very different to our listeners.

When we’re teaching at LONDON LANGUAGE LAB, we try to be aware of cultural differences – as well as common ground. We encourage discussion of how language sounds to you – and exploration of possible reasons for any differences. It’s only by talking that any of us ever learn how to be more sensitive about the way our words may impact those around us.

The missing boy’s mum and dad got it badly wrong, but they have shown just how easily a child’s tantrum can escalate into a crisis

As Yamato Tanooka’s parents have learned all too well, the trouble with punishing children is that they are alarmingly good at punishing you right back. The seven-year-old had been throwing rocks on a family day out in a forest on the island of Hokkaido. His parents drove off and left him, frustrated because he wouldn’t stop. When they returned, minutes later, the boy had disappeared.

The child was missing for six cold days and nights – awful for him, but awful for his parents too. Most parents are familiar with the nightmare scenarios that spool through the mind when a child is missing for a few minutes. Six days in contemplation of the idea that your child may well be dead because you doled out a disproportionate and irresponsible punishment is surely a form of torture.

After a huge search, thankfully, Tanooka was eventually found by chance in a military hut, where running water and a couple of mattresses had assisted his fairly miraculous survival. He’d walked two and a half miles from where his parents had left him. His father has made a heartfelt apology, for the excessive attempt at discipline, for the ordeal he put his son through, and for the huge trouble the saga caused.

The parents had at first claimed that they’d lost their son while the family was foraging for wild vegetables. They must have been too ashamed and horrified to initially admit that they’d been to blame. And indeed, there was much condemnation in Japan. The BBC reports that “Naoki Ogi, a TV personality and pedagogy expert, better known as ‘Ogi-mama’, condemned the parents outright, saying this was neglect and abuse. He also noted and criticised how many parents in Japan tend to see their children as their personal possessions.” The parents could face charges for negligence.

Yet it seems to me that the disciplinarian approach to the behaviour of parents is part of the same problem. Even in Britain, you feel huge shame when it looks like you can’t manage your kids. In Japan, where social shame has the name sekentei and is a very big deal, that pressure probably feels much greater.

In Britain reams and reams of advice has been written for stressed-out mothers about how to handle a supermarket meltdown. One’s ability to handle such a situation is hampered only by the idea that condemnatory eyes are boring into you as the evidence of your parental failure advertises itself so lustily.

All you can reasonably do is to be as aware as you can of what triggers tantrums, so that you can either nip them in the bud or stay calm when one does erupt. Maybe Yamato’s parents enacted some bad parenting in part because they feared too greatly the idea that if their boy didn’t do what he was told, they would be considered … bad parents.

Thankfully, more sympathetic views have also been expressed, especially on social media. Many parents are all too familiar with the awful situation where you lock horns with a defiant child, feel under pressure and allow things to slide out of control. Rarely, however, is the result so frightening, so close to fatal, and so public.

The parents of Yamoto now understand only too well that they did something stupid and dangerous. It’s easy to pontificate about what they should have done when they wanted their son to stop throwing rocks. The ideal parent would, of course, compliment the child on their terrific athletic potential, wonder whether perhaps the dainty creatures of the forest might nevertheless be alarmed or even endangered, wax lyrical about the marvellous fun that can be had from basketball, and suggest that a sports-centred excursion might be on the cards if only the rock-throwing could end.

Of course, the normal parent actually moves through “Stop that” and “I’ve told you once” to “Dear God, give me strength” and “Stop that right now, or you’ll be sorry”. It’s all too easy to make an empty threat only to find that your defiant child is simply begging you heavily to lard the threat with substance. Escalation can happen very quickly and very easily.

A child, who will remain nameless, in a family that will remain nameless was once sent to his room as a punishment for being a jealous monster at his little brother’s first birthday party, which was taking place on a patio outside an apartment in Greece. The punished child’s room had a balcony above the patio, and the nameless mother was shortly set the challenge of working out how to discipline a child who had peed all over the guests – and the cake – from above.

Escalation. Don’t even risk starting it. That’s what the nameless mother tells me. But too late to have stopped herself from being pissed on from a relatively great height.

The StoryOedipe is destined to murder his father and marry his mother. His parents arrange for his murder but instead he is raised as a prince of Corinth. Discovering the prophecy, he flees Corinth – only unwittingly to kill his true father and marry his mother.

After 20 years the truth is discovered. Oedipe blinds himself and his wife/mother commits suicide. He wanders the wilderness. At a grove outside Athens he discovers his final resting place and disappears in a blaze of light.

BackgroundRomanian violinist, pianist, conductor and composer George Enescu (1881–1955) made his first orchestral sketches for Oedipe in 1910, after being powerfully moved by a stage performance of Sophocles’ Oedipus tyrannus. His librettist, the French poet Edmond Fleg, was still making changes to the text by 1921 – while Enescu would not finish the score of this, his only opera, until 1932. The premiere at the Paris Opéra on 13 March 1936 was well received but in 1937 the opera was dropped from the repertory, not performed again until 1955. It has since then enjoyed only sporadic performances – despite being acclaimed as one of the great masterpieces of the 20th century.

Catalan theatre group La Fura dels Baus (Le Grand Macabre, ENO) first staged their production of Oedipe at La Monnaie, Brussels, in 2011. True to form for this innovative theatre company, their spectacular take on Enescu’s exploration of fate and freedom creates an earthen world ravaged by both natural and man-made disaster. From this land of clay Enescu’s breathtaking score soars – encompassing everything from Berliozian opulence to eerie Sprechstimme – in this sole operatic statement from a great musician.